Collapse debate on other board

[uselesseater]

I'm 'debating' the collapse of the towers with some guy on another board and I'd like it if some of the guys on here could comment on his post before I reply. I've not heard this viewpoint before, comments please guys?

:
Again you make the crucial 'it wasn't hot enough to melt steel' mistake. The steel didn't have to be molten, just significantly weakened. At the temperatures inside the towers the steel would have began to lose it's rigidity very quickly, and when it's support 20-30 floors of structure above, it really won't last long.

The floor truss supports were not strong enough and detached in the heat, disconnecting the cores from the outer walls which was the crucial part of the structural system. The outer walls and cores were not designed to stand alone. Once the trusses detached the walls began to bend due to the weight bearing down and the heat(if you remove the lateral support from a vertical structure it depends on, the structure will fail)

Another crucial mistake you make is your 'it fell at freefall speed' line. There is nothing unusual about the speed in which the debris fell. If you watch the videos, you can see that the debris that fell at freefall speed was actually freefalling as it had been thrown out away from the building by the force of the top floors suddenly collapsing downwards.
The main chunk of the debris fell far more slowly as it slammed through the rest of the structure, watch the videos and you'll see that the debris thrown out hits the ground several seconds before the rest of the building has pancaked down. There WAS resistance. Stop buying into the trash conspiracy 'facts' and watch the evidence with your own eyes.

[Justin]

Hi there,

Refer your debating friend to this site and tell him to come back to you to explain why a Professor of Physics has got it so wrong. Also ask him to explain Building 7 and its collapse.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[ian neal]

Hi

Whilst accepting that NIST say the towers collapsed due to the stresses of thermal expansion (rather than 'melting' steel), I would ask for an explanation of the numerous reports of MOLTEN steel found in the basements of all 3 towers.

Not that the explanation of thermal expansion leading to 'detachment' of the trusses from the core and perimeter columns holds water either but answering that one will take longer.

I would go back and ask how hot s/he thought the fire was inside the towers and how much safety margin (design redundancy) is incorporated in the design. I've read it is 4x, ie in other words the steel framework was designed to take 4x the design weight before failing. Therefore the steelwork would need to loose 80% of its strength before catestrophic failure would occur and in order to fail symetrically logic dictates that this failure point was reached right across the whole floor, despite photos of people standing in the holes where the plane entered moments before collapse.

[uselesseater]

Thanks for the help guys. This is what I posted to his reply.

You are correct that prponents of the official theory, like Tomas Eager say the steel did'nt need to 'melt'. Eagar says that i would be possible for the official collapse theory to be true if the steel was heated to the point where lost 80% of stength i.e. 1300 F. There is a possibility that the fires reached this temperature. However, in order for a fire of 1300 F to raise steel to that temperature, the fire would have have sufficient energy i.e. to be large and be applied to the steel in question for a considerable ammount of time.
Even if the fires in the buildings were near the 1300 F mark it is very doubtful that the size and duration of the fire was sufficient to raise any of the steel to the required temperature.
In fact the fies did not even reach this temperature. The NIST report which found that out of 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three showed evidence that steel had reached temperatures over 250 C (482 F). Using metallographic analysis NIST determined that there was no evidence to suggest that steel had reached temperatures of 600 C (1112 F).
This theory runs into more trouble as, for a highly unlikely, symetrical collapse, it would be necessary for the angle clips on the heated floors to fail almost symultaneousley.




Interesting hypothersis. I'd like it if you could direct me to a link containing further infomation.

However the video does not support the idea that the debris was thrown off by the shock of the initial floor collapse. Rather than the material being free falling, the building unzips from near the gash, down to the street, albeit at extrodinary speed. The debris was dislodged sequencially not symultaneousley.

These are some of the problems with the official account before you even get into the numerous accounts of explosions in the basements, flashes, pulverised concrete, molten metal, squibs and seismographic evidence which all point to controlled demolition

[ian neal]

This video clip from the evidence of Jeff King MIT presented at the 2004 NY Inquiry featured on Confronting the Evidence DVD is one of the best summaries

http://66.111.201.132/video/cte_07_lo.mov from www.911blogger.com



The report he refers to by weidlinger associates dismissed the 'pancaking theory' and truss failure and instead blames column failure

[Justin]

Following this:

[quoTuesday, November 29, 2005
BYU Issues Statement About Steven Jones's WTC Research Paper
Fulton College Response to Professor Steven Jones's Statements Regarding Collapse of World Trade Center


Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.

The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.


BYU has issued an official statement in response to Professor Steven Jones's recent paper which is pressing for a real investigation into the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

While the statement seems to suggest that Jones's paper and research are very much valid in the 'pursuit .. of knowledge and ideas', the last sentence of the paper quite bluntly states that the entire faculty of the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support his hypothesis.

To issue a blanket statement that the entire faculty disagrees with his hypothesis is quite a quick jump from supporting his research, to saying everyone thinks he is wrong. Ironically the statement has absolutely no discussion of the subject matter and science involved at all (unlike Jones's recent paper), but yet quickly dismisses all of his research in one fell swoop.

I can't say that I am surprised at BYU cowering to the negative publicity that comes along with questioning 9/11, but science and research is supposed to be the one section of the educated masses that could care less about 'P.R.' and being 'P.C.' . Facts are facts, and a simple blanket statement simply doesn't matter.

Along with Steven Jones from BYU, Jeff King from MIT, and Jim Hoffman, many educated scholars have made similar statements as to the impossible 'pyroclastic flows', 'free-fall speed collapses', and issues with the 'conservation of momentum'.

When a blanket statement like this from BYU is released it does little to quell a debate, but in fact urges it along. Those that question 9/11, specifically those that question the 'collapse' of WTC7, will continue to challenge the reports issued by the NIST, and the accepted common knowledge that 3 super-structure steel-framed buildings collapsed on 9/11 at the speed of free-fall despite resistance provided by the lower intact super-structure for the first and only time in all of recorded history.

Quite simply, there are numerous flaws with the physics 'analysis' done regarding the 'collapses' on 9/11. We can either ignore these issues and adhere to the 'official story' or have open and public debates about the issues themselves. Or in this case, just issue a blanket statement denouncing a 9,000 word research paper issued by a 20+ year professor with absolutely no counter-argument.

Feel free to contact the engineering department at BYU and encourage them to help Jones in spreading the need for a real investigation and honest public discourse on the subject matter.

te]

I've sent a letter off to the faculty voicing our support for a new enquiry about how the Twin Towers and Number 7 came down. Would do no harm if others sent a letter too supporting Professor Steven Jones[/quote]

[Pikey]

This unfair amd unreasonable action dealt out by BYU brings to mind the following historic words of wisdom spoken by a man who embodied peace and goodwill:-

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win"

Mahatma Gandhi said this referring to his struggles for Indian independence from Britain, but it is just as relevant to the 9/11 truth movement today. If we look at the movement in terms of these stages we can see the progress we have made, and how far we still have to go.

“A small body of determined spirits fired up by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”

The 911 Truth campaign is getting there.......history has consistently shown that the truth conquers all!